TSA baggage inspections starting at NY State Amtrak stations
- Thread starter Superliner Diner
- Start date
Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:
- Status
well, there goes another reason to use empire service trains (and the LSL) for going to/from rochester. part of the appeal of amtrak travel is the ability to show up close to departure time and get on the train with a minimum of hassle -- especially the ridiculous security measures employed at airports these days. and now it's gone.
-- eliyahu
austin, tx
Everydaymatters
Engineer
It's about time!
Sure, it was great in the days when we were a safe, secure country, but now... Some people still don't get it. There are a group of people out there who hate Americans and it is their desire to get rid of us. Wake Up, Americans!
A little inconvenience in having baggage checked by TSA is fine with me. I don't think the airport security is at all ridiculous.
Sure, it was great in the days when we were a safe, secure country, but now... Some people still don't get it. There are a group of people out there who hate Americans and it is their desire to get rid of us. Wake Up, Americans!
A little inconvenience in having baggage checked by TSA is fine with me. I don't think the airport security is at all ridiculous.
I remember TSA ran a few pilot programs at Washington Union a while back and I certainly agree that this is a necessary security measure. I suppose there are several screening techniques that will be used, i.e. dogs and special detectors, and I wouldn't be surprised if they manually inspect some bags.
I wonder if they will allow pocket knifes/Leatherman tools in checked bags. I usually bring a Leatherman tool, but I suppose I won't be able to so any longer.
Deimos
I wonder if they will allow pocket knifes/Leatherman tools in checked bags. I usually bring a Leatherman tool, but I suppose I won't be able to so any longer.
Deimos
Superliner Diner
Conductor
I would be inclined to think that while it's the same agency, the rules will be a lot different. I don't think they are too worried about a train passenger hijacking a train with a sharp instrument such as a pocket knife. And I don't think they are going to ban things like bottled water and such. Not allowing fluids would mean no drinks served in the cafe cars on the Empire Corridor trains that have them.
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2003
- Messages
- 8,507
Since you can have items like that in airline checked baggage, I doubt there would be any problem with Amtrak.
Every time I hear somebody advocating higher levels of security and inspections and so forth for everything, it just seems to me that something really hasn't been thought completely through. For one thing, I expect that a lot of those foreign-terrorist folks are laughing their butts off at the ever-increasing expense and ever-increasing inconvenience, delay, lowered national productivity levels, loss of civil rights and civil liberties, and overall frustration that WE, not they, are subjecting this country to. Next, I suppose, will be TSA-trained drivers of all municipal buses who will do a frisk and x-ray of all passengers. Then on to the taxi-drivers. Then TSA-trained busboys who will do the same at all hotels, movie-theaters, coffee-shops, restaurants, and churches. Where does it stop?
The next point, of course, is that SOMEBODY has to pay for all this. And, guess what, it's US. Not the terrorists. Not the TSA. At some point a cost-benefit analysis needs to be done. Not just for the direct cost of the TSA people and their equipment, either. How many more millions of work hours of productivity are we going to lose from having to stand in more lines for this stuff, like at the airports? There really ought to be something along the lines of an environmental impact analysis that is required for this sort of thing, so that we get what we need rather than what some knee-jerk paranoid political reaction sets in motion. The obscene loss in national productivity, the incredible increase in frustration levels of the traveling public, the delays , the loss of civil liberties - maybe we should all just lock ourselves in our homes and telecommute.
Ask another question - if there had been TSA luggage inspections at every single Amtrak station starting on 9/12, how many attacks would that have prevented? Answer: NONE. Cost? Probably in the multiple Billions of Dollars. Before you go fixing something that the public has to pay for, you ought to have to prove it's BROKE.
The next point, of course, is that SOMEBODY has to pay for all this. And, guess what, it's US. Not the terrorists. Not the TSA. At some point a cost-benefit analysis needs to be done. Not just for the direct cost of the TSA people and their equipment, either. How many more millions of work hours of productivity are we going to lose from having to stand in more lines for this stuff, like at the airports? There really ought to be something along the lines of an environmental impact analysis that is required for this sort of thing, so that we get what we need rather than what some knee-jerk paranoid political reaction sets in motion. The obscene loss in national productivity, the incredible increase in frustration levels of the traveling public, the delays , the loss of civil liberties - maybe we should all just lock ourselves in our homes and telecommute.
Ask another question - if there had been TSA luggage inspections at every single Amtrak station starting on 9/12, how many attacks would that have prevented? Answer: NONE. Cost? Probably in the multiple Billions of Dollars. Before you go fixing something that the public has to pay for, you ought to have to prove it's BROKE.
Last edited by a moderator:
Torgo90
Train Attendant
Here here, AmtrakWPK.
As usual for television news, there's a lot less here than meets the eye. According to the Albany Times-Union, the affected stations are Syracuse, Utica, and Rome, with Albany-Rensselaer to be added later on.
TSA has announced (!) that the first "random checks" will be done at Syracuse on April 6th. That should be a good day to board at Syracuse, shouldn't be any bomb-toters showing up!
Full story at http://tinyurl.com/2jbzxz
TSA has announced (!) that the first "random checks" will be done at Syracuse on April 6th. That should be a good day to board at Syracuse, shouldn't be any bomb-toters showing up!
Full story at http://tinyurl.com/2jbzxz
George Harris
Engineer
Agree completely with AmtrakWPK. This is a rediculous chasing of shadows. It is actually fairly reasonable in comparison to what is being planned by TSA in relation to hazardous materials shipments. Read the article in April Trains about it. In essence they want control of everything, access to everything, and secrecy about everything THEY decide should be secret. The last paragraph suggested a look at ther Iraqi railway which moves a lot of tankcars of hazardous materials. How many have been subject to terrorist attacks? NONE.
i absolutely agree with the first part of your reply. and i think the TSA, on the whole, is doing an excellent job; i certainly appreciate their efforts to keep my flight safe from those who would wish us harm.
i myself am perpetually 'randomly selected' (why? i'm going to leave that out for now), and have in fact refused certain 'inspections' that the TSA has requested above and beyond what i believe in concordance with basic human dignity. of course, i lost the ability to board my flight, but i am in no way upset about that. i knew in advance that refusal to comply with all directives from TSA personnel could result in an inability to board, and i made that choice. people are always threatening to sue these poor people for just doing their job; if you don't want to do something you feel is undignified, that's fine. but like me, you have to accept the full consequences of your choice.
living in israel taught me that the rules and security inspections exist for a reason. the only thing i find 'ridiculous' about some of the TSA procedures is that they aren't particularly effective, and some of the more effective things the TSA could do (prescreening passengers, focusing on those with 'at-risk' profiles) are forbidden because of our political climate. and by the way, i would still be one of those with more rigorous security precautions taken because of my travel patterns.
i don't want the thread to degenerate into an argument about personal liberties versus collective security; but i do think that the security rigor applied at airports is very much out of place at most amtrak stations in the united states. despite our hopes for a world where everyone takes intercity rail everywhere, it is the least used mode of transport for long-distance travel. it simply doesn't register high on the list of potential targets for terrorists and other murderous criminals out there.
therefore, outside of major stations along the NEC, i cannot imagine the real benefit to this other than showing 'we're doing something about security' to satisfy congressional demands to 'beef up' security in our public transit centers nationwide. i really do think it detracts from the travel experience far more than the potential benefit, and that's why i objected. i realize one only need look at the london and madrid attacks to know that trains and stations are vulnerable; but since few people travel rail here outside the NEC, it just doesn't make sense in this instance.
if they had announced this program would begin in new york, philly, washington, baltimore, newark, and boston, then i would support it. but this particular rollout i just think is a tad wasteful.
-- eliyahu
austin, tx
Last edited by a moderator:
Everydaymatters
Engineer
"Knee jerk, paranoid political reaction" - What? 9/11 didn't create a knee-jerk political reaction. It's 5 years later and we are just now getting security on trains. Five years does not constitute a knee-jerk reaction.
Good thing we are smart enough to "fix something before it broke". We don't need another loss of 3000 people.
What would register "high on the list" for potential terrorists? Wouldn't that be a location with a lot of people - like a train?
Does anyone out there know how many people would be on a train? Seems to me it would be close to 150 or so. There were enough people on the trains in Spain to make them a desirable target.
Remember - there are people out there who hate us and want to destroy us. It's a very real threat.
Good thing we are smart enough to "fix something before it broke". We don't need another loss of 3000 people.
What would register "high on the list" for potential terrorists? Wouldn't that be a location with a lot of people - like a train?
Does anyone out there know how many people would be on a train? Seems to me it would be close to 150 or so. There were enough people on the trains in Spain to make them a desirable target.
Remember - there are people out there who hate us and want to destroy us. It's a very real threat.
frj1983
OBS Chief
Excuse me,
But with only about 125-300 people on an Amtrak LD Train or Corridor train, how would that be "terrorist bang for the buck." It seems to me that AmtrakWPK is right, so few people use Amtrak (in the grand scheme of transportation) that it is not even on their radar. If anything a large Train station could probably be a target or a regularly jammed freeway system with lot's of bridges present! And I think AmtrakWPK is right about another thing: I think the terrorists get a charge out of wanking our chains by simply sending out propaganda and then watching us squirm! (in fact, I think it's their favorite thing)
I keep my eyes peeled and I do report things I see that don't look right to me along the tracks. And yes, most of TSA IS "knee-jerk paranoid political reaction." And that's all I'm going to say!
How can you have the loss of 3,000 people on a 150 person train? You can't hijack a train, fly it across the the country and run it into a government building. Even if a train crashes, most of the passengers will likely survive. It doesn't travel all that fast, and the hijackers would most likely be caught, tried, convicted, and imprisoned or executed. Even if a hijacker is wearing explosives, an explosion in one car isn't going to kill everybody on the train. Maybe a number of people in that particular coach. It just is not the same threat in terms of how productive, from the terrorist's standpoint, it is in producing mayhem. It just isn't. Terrorists go for maximum mayhem, and maximum visibility. A train doesn't do it. And I point out, again, that if it was such a threat, then how come, in the years since 9/11, during all that time, with NO security screenings, there has been not one single incident on a train here in the U.S.? If we had immediately instituted the same sort of intrusive, passenger frustrating, and exceedingly expensive security on trains that we did on air transport, we would have spent many billions of dollars for absolutely no safety benefit. Just because we CAN do something doesn't mean we SHOULD do something. Unless the benefit has some relation to the cost, it doesn't make sense to do it.
It would make a whole lot more sense to me to put money and effort into "hardening" chemical and nuclear plants, and doing something about the tens of thousands of freight train chemical cars that are, every single day, running around on freight trains through heavily populated areas in this country. A single one of those freight cars, exploding in a train of them going through a metropolitan area, or for that matter, one single gasoline tanker-truck driven into a large building, would likely create more death and mayhem than a fistful of passenger trains with a small army of terrorists. THOSE things are what we ought to be having nightmares about, and doing something to fix, not security on Amtrak passenger trains. If you live, work, or travel anywhere near a rail line that carries freight, I believe you are in much greater danger from that, and from the possibility of a hijacked gasoline tanker-truck, than you are from any terrorist activity on an Amtrak train.
The next time you are traveling on a train, and your train travels through a freight yard (frequently in a densely populated urban area, of course), or the next time your train passes, or get passed, by a freight train, write down the cargo information (it's on the outside of the tank cars) that tells what those cars are carrying. Then go home and look up those cargo information names. You 'll stop worrying about the passenger train as a threat and start having nightmares about those freight tank cars.
Worrying about Amtrak passenger train security, when those other dangers abound, is akin to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
If you recall the Bhopal India disaster with a toxic chemical leak, consider that on any given day there are 100,000 potential Bhopals on the rails or on the highways of this country, and we have to date done little or nothing about that.
It would make a whole lot more sense to me to put money and effort into "hardening" chemical and nuclear plants, and doing something about the tens of thousands of freight train chemical cars that are, every single day, running around on freight trains through heavily populated areas in this country. A single one of those freight cars, exploding in a train of them going through a metropolitan area, or for that matter, one single gasoline tanker-truck driven into a large building, would likely create more death and mayhem than a fistful of passenger trains with a small army of terrorists. THOSE things are what we ought to be having nightmares about, and doing something to fix, not security on Amtrak passenger trains. If you live, work, or travel anywhere near a rail line that carries freight, I believe you are in much greater danger from that, and from the possibility of a hijacked gasoline tanker-truck, than you are from any terrorist activity on an Amtrak train.
The next time you are traveling on a train, and your train travels through a freight yard (frequently in a densely populated urban area, of course), or the next time your train passes, or get passed, by a freight train, write down the cargo information (it's on the outside of the tank cars) that tells what those cars are carrying. Then go home and look up those cargo information names. You 'll stop worrying about the passenger train as a threat and start having nightmares about those freight tank cars.
Worrying about Amtrak passenger train security, when those other dangers abound, is akin to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
If you recall the Bhopal India disaster with a toxic chemical leak, consider that on any given day there are 100,000 potential Bhopals on the rails or on the highways of this country, and we have to date done little or nothing about that.
Everydaymatters
Engineer
"Only" 125 to 300 people? "Only"?
That caused quite a stir in Spain when their trains got blown up by terrorist.
I agree that there are much larger targets, but the subject here is about security on Amtrak passenger trains.
That caused quite a stir in Spain when their trains got blown up by terrorist.
I agree that there are much larger targets, but the subject here is about security on Amtrak passenger trains.
quite right. the attacks in london and madrid demonstrate that transit networks are a target when heavily used. penn station in new york, union station in DC (among others) during peak times hold tens of thousands of people on various platforms, waiting areas, etc. i can certainly see targeting those facilities, which is why i do indeed support a rollout of TSA personnel along heavily used points in the NEC. but i don't think i need the TSA in temple, tx, for example.
i hope fellow posters here do indeed recognize the threat, and that in general, the TSA is trying to do what it can and what the public will generally allow in an effort to make us safer. the only point i'm arguing is where their deployment is most useful given the cost and impact to travelers. and where it doesn't make particular sense, such as in small empire service points in new york state, it will cause far more inconvenience and reduced ridership than is otherwise worth it.
-- eliyahu
austin, tx
Torgo90
Train Attendant
Everydaymatters, maybe you would feel differently about the TSA of you had talked to some of the people I met on the 8,900 rail miles I have traveled since Christmas.
One notable rider was a 3rd-generation American who was brown in color, Indonesian descent IIRC. He no longer relished having his anus examined with latex-covered TSA fingers in airport back-rooms and had begun riding Amtrak twice monthly from SEA to EMY.
One notable rider was a 3rd-generation American who was brown in color, Indonesian descent IIRC. He no longer relished having his anus examined with latex-covered TSA fingers in airport back-rooms and had begun riding Amtrak twice monthly from SEA to EMY.
You're not listening. Consider this quote from a recent Pittsburgh Tribune-Review story (one of their reporters went to the Las Vegas area, found, approached, and fastened business cards, on to freight cars carrying toxic chemicals):
A further quote:
You still want to inspect the deck chairs while the icebergs labeled anhydrous ammonia, chlorine, hydrogen flouride, sulfuric acid, phosphoric acid, and who knows how many other deadly chemicals, (stored in huge quantities in chemical plants, refineries, and transported by freight train and truck) are drifting toward you?
Consider these quotes about just one of dozens of lethal chemicals, some stored in urban areas in large quantities and transported by truck and rail: from http://fluoridealert.org/pollution/2248.html
As that article also (again) points out,
I would also worry about subways. The force of an underground explosion can't dissipate as readily, it's much harder to get rescuers to, it would create a debris field making rescue much more difficult, and it would take a lot longer to repair, with greater disruption of high-density urban transportation, all for the price of a single explosion. Again, the terrorists are looking for maximum disruption. Densely crowded commuters = attractive target.
How does the threat to your Amtrak train look now? The reader is left to consider the results if it had been a series of bombs, not business cards. (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/specialreports/s_487117.html
A further quote:
Another quote from another article:
And we're spending how much for TSA to screen passenger train luggage?
You still want to inspect the deck chairs while the icebergs labeled anhydrous ammonia, chlorine, hydrogen flouride, sulfuric acid, phosphoric acid, and who knows how many other deadly chemicals, (stored in huge quantities in chemical plants, refineries, and transported by freight train and truck) are drifting toward you?
Consider these quotes about just one of dozens of lethal chemicals, some stored in urban areas in large quantities and transported by truck and rail: from http://fluoridealert.org/pollution/2248.html
That was worse than 9/11 in total injuries.
As that article also (again) points out,
An Amtrak train iisn't even remotely in the same class, as far as magnitude of death, terror, and mayhem, as a deliberate dissemination by explosion of these chemicals. That's what TSA ought to be spending their time and money protecting us from. And it's what we ought to be advocating for. When I am traveling by train, I am actually way more worried about one of those tank cars exploding, or leaking, as my Amtrak train runs past it than I am about the likelihood of some fellow passenger's baggage or carry-on. And so should we all.
I would also worry about subways. The force of an underground explosion can't dissipate as readily, it's much harder to get rescuers to, it would create a debris field making rescue much more difficult, and it would take a lot longer to repair, with greater disruption of high-density urban transportation, all for the price of a single explosion. Again, the terrorists are looking for maximum disruption. Densely crowded commuters = attractive target.
Last edited by a moderator:
While I personally think that the priorities of the TSA should be Amtrak on the NEC, but even more importantly commuter RR/subways, I can answer why they are spending time and money at Empire service stations. It's the same reason that the US Customs continues to cause massive delays to the Lake Shore Limited; our porous border with Canada.
If you have a terrorist who makes it into Canada, then crosses the border with the intent of detonating something in NY's Penn Station, what's the easiest way to get to Penn Station? :unsure: An Empire Service train!
So I'm guessing that they felt this was enough of a potential target, yet one that they could defend against at least marginally without causing huge disruptions to the traveling public. Unlike say trying to inspect every person who enters NYP.
Now that said, I personally still don't believe that this is the right answer. I think that our initial $$$ should be getting spent on securing our commuter rail system, where the potential to take out 1,000 people exists. Or our subways, where an equal if not higher amount of people can be hit.
I see this as a knee jerk reaction in the sense that pressure has continued to increase on Congress and the White House to protect passenger service, but rather than pouring bigger bucks into more meaningful protection, they've started small and in an area that probably is less of a threat than others.
The real question is, is this being done to get the ball rolling and to test ideas, or is this being done simply to placate people with no intent to expand and improve on what they are planning for the Empire corridor? :unsure:
amymaree
Train Attendant
Just a thought, if you were riding on a train and someone brought a gun or a knife on board, right now there are no screenings to prevent this, got angry and began to use the gun, would it be okay to at least have some sort of detectors in place before passengers got on a train.
i do not think checking baggage is what the tsa needs to worry about but what people bring on the trains like guns and knives. why is it not okay to bring these items on a plane but there is no checking on what people bring on board. not all people in this world are terrorist and are out to get us, but there are quite a few, i do not allow my children outside to play unless i am there to give you a perspective on me, but i do think that we need to be more aware of our surroundings. so i am for detectors at stations but not checking my baggage. it is getting on board the train that i worry about somebody with a gun or knive getting really ticked off on a long train ride and deciding to do something. it has not happened yet that i know of but the reality that we would be attacked was something we thought would never happen either.
one persons life is worth a few minutes of time to check. there is a question up there somewhere but i just wanted to add my two cents into this topic. i am traveling with my children to d.c. so as a parent i would love to not worry as much if passengers were checked for weapons.
until i read again
i do not think checking baggage is what the tsa needs to worry about but what people bring on the trains like guns and knives. why is it not okay to bring these items on a plane but there is no checking on what people bring on board. not all people in this world are terrorist and are out to get us, but there are quite a few, i do not allow my children outside to play unless i am there to give you a perspective on me, but i do think that we need to be more aware of our surroundings. so i am for detectors at stations but not checking my baggage. it is getting on board the train that i worry about somebody with a gun or knive getting really ticked off on a long train ride and deciding to do something. it has not happened yet that i know of but the reality that we would be attacked was something we thought would never happen either.
one persons life is worth a few minutes of time to check. there is a question up there somewhere but i just wanted to add my two cents into this topic. i am traveling with my children to d.c. so as a parent i would love to not worry as much if passengers were checked for weapons.
until i read again
G
Guest
Guest
Why would a terrorist risk boarding a train at one if these large stations where they have announced random searches instead of simply using a smaller unmanned station or a flag stop.
Um, probably because there are no unmanned stations or flag stops on the Empire Service. And you're assuming that the terrorists actually read the newspapers or railfan boards where this has been announced.
And you're forgetting that the terrorists who pulled off 9/11 did indeed board at major airports with lots of security, and not one was caught.
And consider, when you are worried about knives and such, that the knives we are all worried about were the terrorists' tools to hijack the airplanes and force the pilots to fly the airplanes into the WTC and other buildings. And those tools would NOT work on trains. I don't care what you bring on board that train as a weapon, from a toothpick to an inflatable Abrams tank, that train isn't going to Cuba, it isn't going to fly into the Empire State Building, it isn't going to crash into the Pentagon. And the "cockpit" is a long way from the "passenger compartment". It's not just one flimsy door away from the passengers like it is on an airliner.
In many cases, although not all, the "cockpit" isn't even acessible from a moving train.
- Status
